There's only so much design space in a game, particularly a fairly rules-light game like X-Wing. If you start putting hard restrictions on what cards can do, even if they have a restriction or appropriate costing, then you're going to run out of design space real fast.

35 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Yeah, you say that now.

Just wait until I 3-straght, target lock, focus, evade right in your face then dump the stress on you for dessert. We'll see who's laughing then.

Me still when it on average dies immediately after its first shot is fired.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

There's only so much design space in a game, particularly a fairly rules-light game like X-Wing. If you start putting hard restrictions on what cards can do, even if they have a restriction or appropriate costing, then you're going to run out of design space real fast.

But my argument is that unpreventable actions themselvea are restricting design space, and I rather forgo those than potentially cool things

I routinely load a K-4 onto my YV's, and a limit on completing a green maneuver seems reasonable, though I would still keep full 1-3 range on the TL.

Advanced Sensors I would leave alone; I'm not sure what to say about Accuracy Corrector... it certainly feels broken on a Ghost Autoblaster.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

I‘m against additional actions that rely on a movement in any way and ignore bumps or overlaps, period.

The whole concept is flawed.

OMG, something we disagree on!

I don't think the concept is flawed. I think upgrades that work like this have to be costed to work like this, is all.

FWIW, I think K-4 is costed properly to work like this. I agree with those who are saying the problem is the JM5K. Too many greens, given the spectacular Unhinged Astromech. (Which reduces to: too good a ship, with too many good upgrade slots. Same as it ever was.)

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

OMG, something we disagree on

Had to happen eventually

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I don't think the concept is flawed. I think upgrades that work like this have to be costed to work like this, is all.

FWIW, I think K-4 is costed properly to work like this. I agree with those who are saying the problem is the JM5K. Too many greens, given the spectacular Unhinged Astromech. (Which reduces to: too good a ship, with too many good upgrade slots. Same as it ever was.)

I have three arguments against them:

1. My preference for the game is that many if not almost all plays should have a skill-based counter. By skill-based I mean based on your actions during the game instead of list building. Examples are of course range control, arc dodging, blocking and bumping. There are examples where it‘s not possible, so I‘d limit ‚plays‘ to actions. That‘s not a good argument as it is too subjective and a good game should suit several playstyles, but I mention it anyway for the sake of honesty I guess.

2. Unpreventable actions limit design space. You mentioned the Jumpmaster. Every future scum ship with a crew slot will require considerations about K4. It‘s a better FCS for a point more, if the dial has enough/the right greens. Especially for Scum where all the awesome bountyhunters are famous and have crew cards we love crew slots. But now the greens are problematic because there is no skill-based counterplay.

3. Unpreventable actions contribute to broken combos. You write the upgrades have to be costed accordingly. But I don‘t trust FFG anymore in that regard. They repeatedly mess up, and some crafty player will find a way to exploit it until it gets fixed - which happens way too slowly. To emphasize, I don‘t blame players for abusing such a build, I blame FFG for allowing it and not/glacially correcting it.

So in summary I don‘t like the principle, but I also believe that FFG simply can‘t handle this type of action, which is why I‘d rather see them gone.

Edit:

Allright, I have to adjust my view after actually looking at the cards.
From what I counted there are 38 upgrade cards that provide a form of free actions. Just 1/3 or 14 cards are preventable by blocking (PTL, Juke, R7-T1, BB-8, R5-P9, Experimental Interface, Advanced SLAM, Recon Specialist, Fleet Officer, Weapons Engineer, Jyn Erso, Lando, TIE x7, TIE v1).
All other 24 that I consider to give an action advantage (+1 net action) are not blockable (e.g. Expertise, Predator, Lone Wolf, Wired, Crackshot, Attanni, [...], R2-D2, Advanced Sensors, FCS, Advanced Cloaking Device, Guidance Chips, Gunner, Rey, K4, Kallus, TIE x1).

Clearly they are not all bad, so my initial opinion was wrong.

Maybe the problem are maneuver/wingmen dependent actions (x7, K4, R2D2, Attanni) and FFG just sucks at costing them or taking them into consideration when developing new ships?

Anyway, I concede the point.

16 hours ago, DR4CO said:

You catch far too many perfectly innocent cards with that kind of blanket approach. K4 needs to be smacked around a little, but Pivot Wing? Outlaw Tech? Lando pilot?

Cards that trigger from executing a maneuver:

Braylen (oh darn, r3a2 braylen might have a slightly harder time shedding stress). Dauntless (specifies overlapping, so no change), Ghost (can't deploy the phantom, could be more problematic), Night beast (not used anyway), Oicunn (specifies touching, so no change), Ion tokens (would need a reference change to clear even on bumping), R2D2 (no regen on bump? Sounds good to me), R9 astromech (no one uses), K4 security droid, Unkar Plutt crew (specifies overlap, so no problem), X7 (already changed), Pivot Wing (makes it a bit worse).

I'll take a nerf to pivot wing and the ghost (as someone who fliest he ghost a lot) and a needed channge to the ion token reference to nerf k4 and r2d2, plus a couple other cards no one uses anyway.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

But now the greens are problematic because there is no skill-based counterplay.

I don't accept this, though. I have a regular play partner who has a very scary Bossk build using K4 and ordnance. When I beat him, I do it through counter-play: I bump him or I don't give him arc. I use the fact that he wants a green maneuver against him. That's pretty much the very definition of counter-play, isn't it?

Now this is doable on Bossk. It's not so much doable on Dengar. But, again, that comes back to the problem being the JM5K, not K4.

Quote

So in summary I don‘t like the principle, but I also believe that FFG simply can‘t handle this type of action, which is why I‘d rather see them gone.

I don't blame you for not trusting the design team with an "unstoppable action," but I really do think the underlying problem, even in this context, isn't the unstoppable action ... it's the platforms they're putting out that synergize way, way too well with the unstoppable action. At this point, I'm having a hard time trusting FFG, too, but it's with new stuff they're putting out -- and with their abysmal idea of what's a good "fix" -- not with stuff that's been out, without problems, for a good long time.

We can agree to disagree, if you like, because I have to say that it is going to be an extreme uphill climb to convince me that an upgrade that is demonstrably fine, power-level-wise, on anything but a broken ship isn't a problem with the ship, not the upgrade. That's true of Advanced Sensors, and it's true of K4.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

We can agree to disagree, if you like, because I have to say that it is going to be an extreme uphill climb to convince me that an upgrade that is demonstrably fine, power-level-wise, on anything but a broken ship isn't a problem with the ship, not the upgrade.

I think you just missed my edit. There are so many cards that I did not take into consideration and which are clearly no problem, so I was wrong.